-Of the Egyptian jurists who prohibited smoking (Mostsfa Al-Hamami),and in (Hamat) In Syria ther (Mohammad Al-Hamed ) ,and In (Halab ) there (Ahmed –Kurdi ) who was the (Mofti) and in (Demeskus ) there were (Badr –Aldyn Al-Hosini ) and (Hashem Alkhatib )and (Ali Al-Dokr ) all of them carried out an assail against smoking .

Also, al _sheilh (Abdul-nubi al-nabulsi) mentiuoned in hod bol (the conciliatioin between Brothers in toba cco-permissioin) that sone of the jurists of he ‘othamatic’ state .Announced a ‘fatwa’ that tobacco is an impurity factor and the smoker prayer is proverted .

Also, this ‘fatwa ‘ mentioned that the imppurity of the smokke smell in the closes and the body is not to be forgiven , even difficulty removed , unlike wine ,Because smoking is and intended actioin without an actual , need.

Because of such ‘fatws’, smokers were persecurted, during this period.

Some of them announced a ‘fatwa’ that the smoker will be resurrected in the day of reserruction, in hellfire balch jaced with afiring pipe suspend from his neck.

They made ‘ahadith’ related it to the prphet, alhtaugh the smoking was was known after the prophet era by about ten centuries , and the prophet did not know what wll happen later.

Thisevents give us an idea that ‘tobacco prohibition’ was inter_related to a kind of logistic and additional principles, which exeeds the known liits , in prohibitioin of tobacco to include things belongs to somkers and smoking , like preclaiming that the smoker’s prayers is perverted , and his clothes and body are impure , and finally inventing ‘ahadith’ related to the prophet make a smoker gate is a hellfire .

There other ‘fatwas’ link smoking with wine and consider it was alcolohic beverage, such cliam began in the ‘othaminc ‘ era, and among its sponsors :

(Ibn Alaa Al sedky, In his vook announcing brothers by tobaco prohibition) such ‘fatwas ‘ was repeatred by Mohammed Inb Nasser Ibn Moamer Al-Hanbaly who links smking with wine and decided that the smoker should be punished by whipping him fourty whips, and in a similar ‘fatwa’ and in similar fatwa abdulah ian avdulrahman spported him khalid ibn ahmed al gaafary , who lived in mecca , cliamed that : the ‘imam’ who drinks wine legisticallu , is not conveient to load prayers , also legistically praying after him is not permissible and his testimong is not accepted , subsequentky tobacco trade is not allowed .

In our era such opinions are repeated of the present jurists who prohibited tpbacco using the same proves , and some of them claimed legistic ramification which Excedds the known limits.

The most person who prohipited smoking in our era was (Sheikh AL AZHER Mohamoud Shaltout ) In the 20TH century .

He established the prohibition reason on the base of harm,saying : ‘the harmful effects of smoking on health and money , make its prohibitioin a must.’ He announced that a ‘ fatwa’ *1 , by other ramifications like :-

1-prohibition of tobacco planting and manufacturingt , unless other benefits of tobacco are known .

2- praying in tobacco fields is legisticakky correct, This is althaugh the previous sheikh of ALAZHAR Mahmoud Shaltout was smoking and he never get rid of smoking ..!

In 12/10/1972, Dr Zakaria Al-beri, professor of islamic legfislation in cairo university, and one of the friends of Al–Sadat president , Announced a ‘fatwa’ ,in AL-AKHBAR newspaper that verdict of tobacco is between prohibition and aversion. After proving its harful effect, prohibitioin aversion is a degree below the prohibition , but above the usual aversion in the legistic verdicts , He announced a ‘fatwa’ providing other ramification such as:-

1-Allowing the gradual get rid of smoking, for who smoked with a consideration that smoking is legal.

2- New certificates for commercial dealing of tobacco.

3-help the tobacco traders to turn to trading alternative things .

4-Providing other source of state as an alternative to tobacco taxes.

Dr. Zakaria graduated in ALAZHAR UINVERSITY, was the chief of ‘RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ’ in the national governing party during the period of al sadat , and he was the friend od al sadat , and he was also smoking , and his friend the persident al sadat was faous of his pipe .

In eighties , one of ALAZHAR scholars , ‘Mohammed Abdullah Alkhatib’ announced a fatwa that tobacco is prohibited , and he provided the usual proves and the usual reasons whis is “harmfull effect ..” And he also prohibited trade in tobacco , also in eighties Dr .Mohammed altayeb al naggar, the previous chief of ALAZHAR UNIVERISTY, and the previous deputy of ALAZHAR, announced a ‘fatwa’ that (there is a similarity between a wine and tobacco, and such similarity make prohibition a must ), Once he saif that fatwa in television colloquim , and some journalists objected at his fatwa, after that in 1983, wrote a confuote in ALAKHABAR newspaper .

In nineties, smoking ptohibition trend become stronger and was led by sheikh Gad Al –Haq , the formal sheikg of ALAZHAR , he considered smokingas a ruin of self and money , besidesa its harmfull efects on others.

Then, he was followed by (Dr omar abdul alkhfi )the faous propagndist in mid-ninties , and by Dr . Ahmed omar hashim the present chief of ALAZHAR UNIVERSITY .and by De. Ramadan al souty , professor of legislation , who announced a ‘fatwa’ that tobacco selling is prohibited , and its price must be returned to its buyer , and tobacco must be burnt. Like the obligatory pouring out of wine.

But al Sheikh Ateya Sakr, the chief of ‘AL-FATWA ‘ committee in AZHAR has ordered to contend against somking for achieving protectioin and treatment , and and to make protection thraugh edification programs which is a sort of ‘commanding grace an forbidance of abominable ‘, and he suggested to dictate legislation for treatment and contending against smoking and forbidding cigaretes youngstres, and prefer unsmokers in the leading positions and forbiding smoking in public places and means of transportations , and reducing tobacco production and destribution together with obligatory taxes on producer ,and forbid showing smoking on t.v and cinema screens. And prevent cigarettes advertising.

On the other side Dr. abdul Sabour Shahin, announced a ‘fatwa’ that –smoking is prohibited according to the text not by the deligence. And claimed that wine is used in inductioin of tobacco and so he made a ‘fatwa’ pligrim’s concecration is invail if he smoke during pligrim age.

Also Abdul-Ghany Tag Eldyn, of ALAZHAR scholars, announced a ‘fatwa’ that smoking is prohibited and is not legistically allowed for a fasting mto breamfast by a cigarette without considering his fasting illigal.

Also AL sheikh AL Karadawy , trhe well known jourist , announced a fatwa that smoking is prohibited , due to its harmful effect , he provided other ramifications which are :-

1- affirmation of smoking prohibition in certain cases , such as: poor smoking , importing tobacco from enemies’s countries , if the smopker isone of the religion scholars physcians , or if the government ordered to prevent smoking .

2- the smoker who wnts to get rid of smoking but he can’t , is execused.

3-tobacco prohibition is the least degree of prohibition , due to dispute of jurists about its verdicts.

4-Woman smokin is most ugly and undesirable smoking .

5-Asking the state of institutions to contend againt smoking , and prevernt advertising about it .

we notice that all these ‘fatwas’ appear , appear from one aspect or more , to be funny and have contrdictions .

In last august 6/8/2000 , the ‘mofti’ of Egypt announced during his campaign on smoking in ‘OCTOBER’ magazine , that the person who smokes none of his prayerss, fasting , alms tax, or testimony is accepted , and he subjointed smoking to wine an drugs and sins he arbitered that the smoker is considered to be unbeliever , when he knew about smoking prohibitioin and did’t get rid of it , assimilated him to the person who beleived in parts of the book”quran” without other parts , he considerd smoking and wine drinking of the great sins , on which the punishment is obligatory like adultery and stealing , and so the smoker is considered to be dissipated , his testimony not accepted, like who accuses vestal women , and considered illigal

Also , Al-Mofti ‘Nasr Farid Wasel’ dictated other ramification , as:-prohibition from accepting prizes from cigarettes companies , and prohibition of making candies with a cigarette shape , to avoid children familiarity with smoking cigarettes. His ‘fatwas’ extended to include the material and familiar relationships , claiming that the haspand ha the right to divorce the wife who smokes , after failing all the attempts to treat her , and the wife has the same right so long her hasband is addict. He claimed that if either father or amother smokes in front of children , it’s considered that the house committed a sin and a crime , to th e right of Allah ‘ the lord’ and the society , deserves the curse of Allah and his punishment in life after life .

Also he considered the smoking son as a patient should be treated. He claimed that smoking in public places deserves punishment , whe the smoker didn’t respond to advices. Considering workers in the fields of smoking , he claimed that they should look for other uprohibited sources of income , and thisi si not available and they havn’t another sources of income there’s no objection. Finally , he claimed that, it isn’t legistically allowed to give ‘alms taks’ to a smoker, because it’s a support for him to comit this guilt , anf the support of committing a guilt in considered a guilt .

This extravangance of ‘al mofti’ in prohibition and banning made DR. mohammed Saied Tantawy, sheigh ALAZHAR, to announce –rapidly, his opinion in the same magazine by the date 27/8/2000, to lighten the effect ol the ‘mofti’ opinion. Sheikh Alazhar said that smoking cigarettes is not deisrable, but it’s equivalent with drinking wine and adultery.

It’s that ‘al mofti‘ enters an overpidding with the jurist , in Saudia , who belongs to ‘ al hanabela’ where the support of ‘ al wahabia’ thinking, where established on some some bases , as prohibitiu of smokinf which they are well known by since the first and the second Saudian state , up till now – the third state .

In this era the former mofti of Saudia ‘mohammed ibn ibrahim’ announce a fatwa that smoking –is prohibited , and the tobacco should’t be allowed to be an ‘Imam’ , and the tobacco trading should be prohibited .

Also, ‘abdul –rahman al-nassir al saadi’ announced a fatwa that tobaccco and its trading are prohibited together with any support to carry that out. And anyone who did such things, has to repend.

The saudian jourist , some of them, swear at the other jourist who repute their fatwas , with legistic proves , for example – the jourist ‘abdil razik afifi’ is abused due to his asking for the legistic proof stibulated the prohibitioin of tobacco by anme and definitioin, and he didn’t accept the general texts as a proof. For that the Saudia jourisy fdefined him as (short sighted, with weak thaught , ignorant by the sources of legislation , and was persuaded by the divil who made him to love Noxious things). And the chief of the Saudian .knowledg ein his era , claimed that :-smoking permissioin , is a kind of madness, man can’t be relay on it , so don’t allow them to mislead by their propagenda .

In 1974 from 9 to 14 September, the World Health Organization (WHO) , with a finacial support by saudia , held its first conference in Geneva , for heroalding to smoking prohibition .

Many scholarrs participated in this conference from ALAZHAR and Saudia , the most among them was al sheikh ‘Gad Alhaq’, and Dr Abdul galil shalaby , and dr hamed gamea , and dr zakaria alberi and sheikh ateya saqr , and al sheikh abdulla al mashad, and al sheikh mostafe mohamoud and dr ahmed omar hashim , the researchers of the conference became an information base for all the researches about prohibitioin of smoking , and refusing it in the islamic world , after the after the conference , many other conferences were heldin deiffernr islamic countries , incluidng a conference in November, and one isalmic researches participated in it .

Despite of this number of conferenes nothing new was added , as it repeated, and still repeating the same proves, and grasp at the same causes and reasons.

The legistic reasons of and proves for sponsors of smoking prohibitioin.

The attack of the smoke changed to a kind of trade, patronized by the power and the money of Saudia, many of the non-professional researches join this trade, so their paperds show a confusion, between the causes and the reasons of prohibition and the proves of such prohibition. they overadded enthusiatic and compositional sentences that need the academic accuracy, for example :- there is what al aktam mentioned in his book (smoking between prohibition and and religion )of the opinion of smoking prohibition as follows :-

the countless harmful effects of tobacco , and he quoted as a proof of quran (And make not your hands contribute to your destruction .– albaqara_195), (nor kill yourselves –Al Nesaa_29);

tobacco is not deliacies sand quoted of quran (He allowed them as lowful what is good ‘pure’ and prohibits them from what is bad’impure’ –Alaaraf_157), and the prophet hadith (who ate garlic or onion should isolate himself from us )

wasting money of the citizen and the nation , and he quoted the prophet hadith (the passenger of allah forbid tittle , tattle and much more asking and wasting money .), and quoted the quaran :(But squander not ‘your wealth in the manner of spend thrift - al esraa_26), (eat and drink but waste not by excess. Al-aaraf 31 ).

Avoid allogation : as tobacco is considered to enjeable and so its step twards drinking wine and smoking opium .

Legislatioin princliples and bases that confirm that -No harm and no inducion of harm., also , Permission is the basis of good things, and prohibition on the basis of harful things. And finally : If legal and illigal are present together , illigal has the upper hand ).

Mnay scholars refereed that it’s prohibited .

Academic provrs that it’s enjeable and has anaesthetic and alcoholic effect , specially for the first time .

It’s a sort of simulating the hellfire people , when the smoke come out of the smoker’s mouth

Has a role in preventing Allah’Lord’ worshipping.

10-Has a harmful effect on ethics.

11- It doesn’t harm the smoker only , but also the sourrending people .

12- it’s of the suspected things, that Allah orderd us to avoid .

13-A conference was held in cairo , for prohibiting it, and it commanded to strenghten the punishment on smokers in public places and public means of transportations

14-preserving the whole 5 thi: sou;, honor, offspiring , religion and mind , and anyone induces any harm to it considered to comit illigal action

15-smoking make the will weak, make the person as a slave to his desires.

16-Many books are produced to initiate getting red of it , there’s no a bokk that initiates smoking.

17- tobacco smoking is to be prohibited, but not its other uses.

18-“Abdul Nasir Alsaasy” from Saudia , announced a ‘fatwa’ prohibiting the smoking and trading in it , and heling to do that .

..This means that there’s eighteen causes and proves for prohibition of smoking ..

Such book is an example of the propagandic books against smoking, in its method and repeating, as we saw above, it repeatedlt counted the harmfull effects of somking on health, money,society, and religion.

Also it repeats the opinions of the religion scholars who prohibited smoking in their ‘fatwas’ and conferences .

Also, repeatedly refers to the legislation pronciples which he considered it against smoking. But this author falls in a mistake, common between contemporary jurists who wrote against smoking, which is the confusion between causes of legislation and its proves, As regadfing the harmfuk effects on health and the qoranic verses forbidding money wasting (don’t waste )and the forbidding lavish( Eat and drink , but don’t lavish ..) as regarding the harmful effects on health.

Due to the harmful effects on health and wealth, they considered smoking one of the noxious, to relat its verdict to the verse that prohibits noxious things (the delicacies are permissable for you , and noxious are unperissable ), then they added to the koranic quotatioin as a proof the quotation of (Al Ahadith ) , that’s well known during the Abassian era , before the discovering and the destributing of the tobacco , and relate tobacco to it, as AL_Ahadith that forbid every enfeeble and anaesthetic , and that prevent those who ate garlic or onion from entering the mosque, and that forbid wasting money, then they add to thesee quotations the legislation principles which prebent the harm, and avoid allegation, and make the preventioin of coruption prior to bringing benefits, and the prohibition has an adventage over the permission, and also add the legistic aims of jourists which are preservatioin of souls, money, honor, religion, and mind .

And it’s known that the most enthusiatic jurists in the field of prohibition are not necessary the most professioinal in the juristic field. For example the Saudian didn’t add any new in the field of reducion, and they didn’t write a thing in the field of legistic philosophy as regarding tobacco prohibition, because the most prominent scholars who wrote in this field are the former sheikh of Al Azhar (Mahomoud Shaltout) And (Dr. youssif Al-Karadawy) who followed his way. In his book “Al Fatawah”, sheikh Al Azhar Mahmoud Shaltout , says :- “one of the general principles is prohibitioin to preserve religion, or mind, or money, or health, and according to the harm, prohibitioin or undesiring is commanded. Frequently islamic religion prohibithe what was permissible When its harm is over-riding, even islamic religion prohibits the obligated worship if its harm became a sure.”Also he says (islamic command by prohibition or undesiring does depend on the presence of verse, specially relate tp that thing, because th value of reasons of commandsand the principles of legislation, is to make the command obviously known, and by thee reasons and principles the islamic legislation was able to evaluate all what’s new to decide whether it’s ligal, or illigal by knowing the characteristics of both, and if it was harmful it’s considered illigal, but if it’s more or less benefit, it’e considered ligal, an when its harm and benefit are equal, protection is considered to be prior to treatment.

It’e obvious that sheikh shaltout concentrateed on the analysis of the cause of legislation, which is the harm, but he didn’t pay attention to the legistic proves, so he didn’t quote the koranic verses or al ahadith. It’s to be noticed that he didn’t defferntiate between (islam) and (muslims), and considered the jourist as if they were talking for islam, so he gave them a priesthood to be able to command by prohibitioin and undesiring without a text, saying :”islamic command by prohibition or undesiring does not depent on the presence of a text.) and it was more suitable to say (jurists’ command ).

The mistake returns to the fact that jurists contradict with each other , in the past and in now, not only in their doctrines but also within the same doctrine. And their contradictions included everything even smoking. Some of them considered it permissible, some prohibited it, and others considered it undesirable. So how it’s dared to say that (islamic legislation) prohibited, or permissed smoking, or even considered it undesirble .?, or Sheikh Shaltout considered his opinion and himself as if they were the islamic legislation , regardless aother jourists, and when he prohibited smoking, this because islamic religion talk thraugh his tangue?. But if this true, why did not Sheikh Shaltout stop smoking,and didn’t get rid of it?

Now we reach a remarkable point, which is the prohibitioin cause or reason, on which the jourists established their claimd right in prohibitting what Allah permissed, as they look for a cause for prohibition htraugh what they choose of the Koranic verses, then they apply that cause to be prohibited. By this we understand what ‘Shaltout’ means by ‘islamic command by prohibition or undesiring does not depend on the presence of a verse, specially related to that thing, because the value of reasons of commandsand principles of legislation, is to make the common obviously known , and by these reasons and principles, the islamic lewgislation was able to evaluate all new as regarding to ligality or illigality.) the useful meaning in the previous passage is that the affin of legislation by prohibition is still available, even after the Koran was completed and there’s a verse says (-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------), and the islam reaches completeness by the completeness of the Koran, rejetct ant claim that the affair of legislation is still avialable for any human being, after the death of the prophet who was cosen to receive inspiration. This means htat legislation completed by the comletness of islam and death of the prophet, even the prophet himself was prevented from prohibitting anything according to his opinion, besides the prohibited things that commanded by Allah In Koran. And when the prophet prohibited somehtings to himself, by his opinion , beside the prohibits by Allah in Koran, the inspiraion descent to him by (O prophet, why holdest tharugh to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee __________________________al tahrim 1 ).Observing that prohibited such a thing to himself, not to others as the joutists do when prohibiting what is not in Koran, and obligate muslims to follow their command, putting themselves in amdegree above the prophet, who didn’t have the right to legislate, but was just an announcer of the ilamic legislation, as islamic legislatioin and religion are of the right of Allah alone, Allah made the legislation an absolute divine right and restricted to him “the great and the mighty”, while the prophet was ordered to follow the inspiraion and apply the divine legislation.

Such divine legislation preserves in the holy Koran, which is the sources of legislation and principles as regarding ligality and illigality, as following :

1-The permissible ligal is the basic principle, but the illigla is the exceptional, so Allah “the Lord”, talked about it in precise details, as in case of the prohibition of food and marriage.

2-the second principle: preventing prohibitin of what is ligal and considering it as a polyseithsm, as an example for that, we quote of the holy Koran: (I find not a message received by my inspiration any umeaty to be forbidden to be eate----------------------------------by one who wishes to eat it). This verse about that permissible is the general princple, then the follverse is the exception (unless it’s dead meat or blood poured forth, or the flash of swine for it is an abominamtion, or what is impious, anything on which a name has been invoked other than Allah. But necessity) here the exceptional prohit is presenter in preceise details, jointed with a mentin to allowing eating such thinngs to the person who is obliged, but not consider what id prohibited to be permissible. The following verse is about prventing prohibition of what is perissible and ligal, it considers that as lie to Allah ‘the lord’, and a fabrication to his legislation(-------------------------------------------------al nahl 114), So it’s not a human being right tp prohibit what Allah permissed, or add to the prohibits anything by any claime, otherwise it’ll deserve the divine punishemnt, which was mentioned in the following Koranic verses(Al- Nahl 17), (Younis 59), (Al Bakara 174), (Al Naam147,148). But he jourist bypassed all of that and gave themselves the right of legislation tharugh juristic reasoning by searching for the cause of prohibition, and the generalising and applying the casue on all what they want to prohibit, forgetting the fact that legislatin is the right of Allah –almight-, regardless the causes and the reasons.

But this provokes a case which is:

Did the holy koran define the causes of prohibition and make it generla principles appliable to all things after completeness of Koran?… The answer is NO, because Koran as mentioned before made the permission principle, and the prohibited is an exceptional, and prevented prohibition of what is ligal, considering that if it wa unbeleif and was an assult on the right of Allah –almight- to be the only sources for legislation, And when he mentioned the prohibits in precised details, did not mention the harm to be the cause of prohibitoin, but it’s prohibited onto you, so and so … , then he allowed to obliged person to eat such things, so long he does consider what is illigal to be ligal.

Being filth or dissipotion is the only cause for prohibition, and both are Koranic terms, used to used to describe unbeleivers and polytheists, who assult on the right of allah –almight- in legislation then he mentioned the prohibits in preceise details, saying about food prohibits: (I found nnot the message received by me by inspiraion, ant meatn forbidden to e eaten by one who wishes to eat it unless it be dad meat, or blood poured forth, _____________________ AL naaam 145) it describes eating dead bodies or blood pig-meat, to be filth, and describes food introduced as divine sacrifices, or vows to be dissipation.

- As regarding prohibition of wine, gambling “almaysir”, or holy graves “al ansab”, or claiming the ability of guess working “al alzlam”,, Allah command the beleivers to avoid it: (----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- almaeda 90), The word filth is preesent in koran as a decription of polytheists, hypocrites, and idols , aslo as descrpitoin of pollytheism or unbeleif or fabrocaion unto Allah –almight- (AL Anaan 125, Al Aaraf 71, Al tobah 95, Al hag 20), this means it has the same meaning of the word “dessipatiom” which is repeated in the Koran. So it is known that prohibition in Alah legislation is an aspect of the concept, regarding that Alah alone has the rught to legislate: prohibitoin or permision, Allah –almight – uses the conceptual words in his legislatioin, like filth and dissipation, not use the word ‘harm’. Even that the harm as a term and its drivation, never present in Koran, in relation to food or drink, except in situation which contradicts the claims of jourists, when sying by the permission of eating the prohibits, only for obliged person (If a person is -----------obliged by Necessit), this refers to permissing the prohibit for the obliged person and not prohibition of its permissable. This althaugh the term harm used in legislation in Koran in case of marriage or divorce( Al Bakarah 231-233, for marriage and verse “6” for divorce). And the legislatioin of commercials deals (Al bakarah 282) and for debts , heritage , and will)Al nessa 12), and in legislation of (Jehad)in (Al nesaa 95, albakara 177), it wah available for the Koran to use the terms harm , in prohibition legislation for food and drink, and make it a principle in all things that include harm, so that give the humanbeing the right of legislation. But because the right of legislation is drive of the islamic doctrine which si (no god but Allah), and because the prophet himself has not a certificate ofr prohibitioin, so Koran uses conceptual terms as (Filth) and (Dissipation) to make the meaning more clear. Because of that if the “harm” is the cause and the reason of tobacco prohibitioin in islamic legislation , where the prohibited things are ddefined together with what Allah has prevent adding a thing to it.

Even some of the prohibits which was mentioned in the holy Koran had some benefits and the Koran some of such things. We are here talking about wine and gambling, and on followinf such case in brief, we shall find that koranic legislation which decent in “Mecca”, all its legislation verses are brief as (say : the things that my lord hath indeed forbiden are shamful deed, whether open or secret; sins and treapasses against truth or reason;assighning of partners to allah --------------------------AL Araf 33)Ingeneral wine is considered as prohibited sin. Then the prophet was asked at “al madina”about the prohibit of the wine and gample, because the prophet hs not the legislation right, so he wauted, untill the answer : (they ask thee concerning_________wine and gampling say that === Al bakara 219) this means that so long they’re considered as a great sin they are prohiobited, even in the persence of their benefits.

Althaugh the context makes the use of “harm” as a contradict of “benefit” , more suitable, but Allah used the term “sin” which is a term related to the divine legislation, which means that what what is prohibited is to a sin , even if it has some “benfits” , and what is allowed is to be ligal , even if it has some “harm”. In Koranic prohibitioin of ewating the foos of sacrifised animals introduced as asacrificestothe tombs and idols, a certificate on that harm is not the cause of prohibitionat all.as the cause of prohibitioin , here is the dissipation and resistance as came in( Al Anam 145) but not the food which usually of the best fool, and the poor people who crowd duringt the ceremonies and feastivals may make use of is .

It’s clear here, that prohibtion hasno relation with benefits or harms , but due to the islamic doctrine which restrict legislation and prohibition to Allah alone.

Because the koranic termsin prohibitoin and permission are conceptual terms so Allah Descaribes all what he permits as delicacies (-------------------------o people eat of what on earth lawful and good .)SO long it’s getten by legal methods, and at the same time he makes the noxious is a contradictory to the good.( Say not equal are things that are bad and thing that are god ------------) then He descaribes the prohibited things (mentioned by definition and text) as noxious things and the duty who receives the inspiratioin is to show them thathe delicacies are permissible , while noxious are prohibited(Al aaraf 157). Os that the noxious things is not a general desriptoin to be contradicted arround ot , according to the trends , to fall in prohibitioin of what Allah has permissed , but is precisely defined by the prohibits mentioned in Koran and we are not allowed to add to it. NOTE (See the appendix (1)in the detiled refute to who said by prohibition of tobacco.)

SECOND: The Sponsers Of Occasioinal Prohibitoin Of Tobacco:-

Occasionly, some fatwas , which prohibits smoking , creeped in certain circumstances, relate to the smoker and the time or the place to islamic religioin , as they announced a fatwa smoking is prohibites to the poor smoker , this fatwa is preceeded by an easy in (al eman) magazine in 1934, then in ( Al ahram ) newspaperin 25121955, where the question was: If you gave tobacco for a poorsmoker who can’t withstand somking stop , is this considered as an alms ?. The answer was the known tobacco smoking ws undesirable for ( Al shafah ) due to its bad smell, and we are prevented to take anyhting with a bad smell. And ‘Al bokhary’ recitedof the prophet as he said ( the man who ate onioin or gaelic or leek should not entr the mosque, as the angle are harmed human being.). then the jourist subjointe things in the previous hadith to tobacco , despite of that its take is accompanied with money wasting without any apperant benefit. But but taking it is prohibited to who harmed by it , or needs its price to satisfyhis needs and duties , and so , if taking it is undesirable , giving it as an alms is considered an incourage to do undesired things , and subsequently it’s undesirable and deserves no reward.

This means that smoking is undesirable to ( Al shafeah), but it’s prohibited to the poor and who is harmed by it. And the present Sheikh Alazhar Dr. Sayed Tantawy, repeated this opinion whn he said ( smoking is ligal for rich people but not for poor )*.,

And what is new here is considering it ligal for rich people : this means that its verdict is changed from permissin to prohibition , while in previous fatwa , it changed from undesirable to prohibition.

The fatwas of al sheikh Tantawy which was announced in 10/2/1995 is similar to the al fatwa announced by sheikh el degwy and was published in (Nour Alislam )magazine in Shaaban 1349 of the heigra, saying that smoking is prohibited to anyone when it harmed his health , or he needs its price , but when there is harmful effect on body or money, so it’s not illigal.

And there’s another fatwa that rejected the way of youth smoking in public , and notified that it is not polit to do that, so if smoking is done in secret will it be considered will it be allowed?.

As considering time and place circumstanances of smoking many fatwa were issued to prohibit smoking during listening to the holy Koran , or during the morning of Ramadan- the fasting month for muslims-, or in the mosque .

In the (Nour Al islam ) magazine in 1943 there was a fatwa that prohibited snuff and smoking during the morning of Ramadan , and if the fasting muslim takes them he breaks his fast, so we can guess that smoking after breakfat has no objections. In his book (legistic fatwas) Al sheikh Hasanein Makhlouf, prohibited tobacco smoking in mosque similar to al sheikh Al degwy , but he considers it as a case of diligence and cotradiction in opinion , as there is who permisses tobacco smoking inn the mosque .

Also there is another fatwa of al sheikh al degwy in prohibiting tobacco smoking when listening to Koran , as Eguptians accustomed to gather in consolations , in a pavillian or a house where koran is recited , among them there’ are smokers who smoke to spent their time , specially when Koran is recieted, this is unacceptable for devouts who ask grequently about the verdict of legist in thos case.

In August 1931 , a jourist wrote in a magazine claaed (MakaremAl akhlak ) attacking on smoking and his harmful effect , but he said that any thing is absolutely harmful , it is illigal , except that it’s badly needed despite of his extermely in prohibtion , he does not make it absolute , as he make the need an exception , this mens that he allwoed to obliged person to smoke. And so every addict who can not get rid oof smoking is considered onliged to smoke, and finds a legistic certificate in the fatwa of such jurist.

Third: the jourists who are dodgy and hisitatting in smoking prohibition: -

Some attacked smoking without anouncing his own opinion about its prohibition , one of the was the sheikh of alazhar ‘Abdel halim Mahmoud’ who answered a question about smokers who lead muslims as an imam in pray, saying that ir;;s not permissed to smoker to be imam in pray , so long someone lse who can lead them instead, and is more honest and educated than him, so he considers the smoker to be an imam is ligal and then linked that to the uncovering the harmful effects of smoking without saying that it’s prohibited.

It’s clear what Dr Abdul Halim Mahnoud, said has no effect on the smoker inhis pray or in being imam , because the dominant legistic opinion prefers the iman in pray to be the most honest and educated among all prayers, but it is till ligal for whom lack the adventage in educatioin and religion , this means that the former sheikh of alazhar did notadd any new thing in his fatwa depite of his avoiding to announce a fatwa that proohibits tobacco , whichall people are wating him to wheather tobacco is allowed or prohibited .

The writer and journalist(Saleh Montaser) leads a compaign against smoking , and he invited al sheikh AL Ghazaly , the most famout jourist in the 20th century , to write in his corner in Al Ahram newspaper , prohibiting smoking , but al sheikhAL Ghazaly , who is well known by being aggressive and sharp in his opinion , dodged in his fatwa saying that:smoking was not known in the prophetic erato take a verdict , and it has not any alcoholic effect to be joint with wine so any verdict about it is based on its harmful effects according to jourists and phycians , and some poor smoke while their families are in a bad need for such money,and at last Al Ghazaly said tha he can not make averdict by allowing it as it may be illigal for some people and may undesirable for others….., But he did not preciselty announce his opinion .

Fourth: Anlyysis of the opinions of the jourists who claime that smoking is undesirable “makrooh”:

There is a difference in the degrees of verdicts between Koranic legislations and the legislation of the jourists who wrote the books of legistic heritoge for muslims since (Abasian Era).

Basically there are three degrees of legislation in the holy koran :

The Duty: that must be done , like worship and moral orders

The Illigal: which is forbidden .

The Allowed Ligal:which is the original principle .

But what is obliged and what is forbidden.

The obliged duty is followed by the excessive volunteering in warshipping which is a degeree above the obligatory duty like night praying –recitting Koran and listenning in peace- the additional voluneerinng handout.

Allah, almight, make a paradise people in two divisions :- the near procursors , who are not satisfied by carring out the obligatory duties , but they volunteer to do more, together with avoiding what is illigal.

Following them there are the compliers with religion , and they are in a position below the procursors .

The iliigal is subjointed by a lesser degree which is committing the greatest and the great sins , here the illigal is transformed into undesirable “makrooh” , for Allah saying in Koran (--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AL hegorat 7).

Allah , almightm mentioned the great sins as follows : ‘unvelief, parent disobidience, money wasting, sons’ killing , hosnet person killing , adutery, , taking the orphan money by force, playing in balances and scales , following the secrest of others, vanity , Allah said about such things (------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ al esraa 38). This means that adultery is an desiralbe “makrooh” , killing is undesirable “makrooh” , and unbeleif is undesirablr “makrooh” , and if a man avoid such sins then Allah ,almight, forgive he little misdeeds saying in Koran (------------------------------------------al nesaa 31), this means that a man can enter the paradise among the compliers.

So the degrees of koranic legislarin are five : The most superior is volunteering after carring out the obliged duty, Then the obligatory duty, Then the allowable , then the illigal followed by undesirable “makrooh” , which is the greatest sin. But for the jourists , the five legislation degrees are First: the obligatory , Then the deisrable ( which is ligal and allowable and should be carried out , but it does not reach the degree of the obligatory, and it’s not a sin on leaving it), Then the legal, allowable (which whether is carried out or not there is no sin) the undeisrable “makrooh” (which is allowable but shouldn’t be carried out , and no sin it’s done ), then the illigal (which is carring out, is a sin). And these are the legislation degrees for the jouristic doctrines.

The jouristic doctrine started with (Al-Imam Aby Hanifa) who was dead in 150 of the migration, and he did not wrie a book inb the jouristic field , but he was faous by his liberal thaught. Then he was followed by (Al Imam Malik) dead in 179 of the migration, also there is (Al Imam Mohammed Ibn Hassan Alsihibani), dead in 189, of the migration, who was the most prominent fellow of both Aby Hanifa and Malik, as he studied on Aby Hanifa in ‘Iraq’, and joined Malik in ‘Al madina’ and ‘Al Hegaz’, he recited of Malik the book known by (Al-Moataa) which is the first , and oldest book in the field of islamic legist , and it includes about (1008) hadith and legistic affairs.

And Mohamed alshibany recited the recite of Malik of a Hadith of fatwa related to the prophet or his companions or joursit in the ‘Omawian’ era , then comments on it by the opinion of Aby Hanifa, wheather it’s with the opinion of Malik or not. So ‘Al Moataa’ was the oldest book that presents the legistic opinions of both Malik, and Aby Hanifa tegether. In this book the term undesirablr was presented for the first time. For exmaple we quoted: “affair of what desirable of wearing the silk and the silk garmennt: Hadith number 870 Mohammed Ibn Alhassan Al Shibany says : Malik told us about what Omar told -----, then he recited a Hadith about the prophet refused wearing the silk--, then commneted on the Hadith saying –It’s not allowed fot
the muslim man to wear the silk and the silk garment and gold ,and that is all undesired for the males, old and young , without no objections with females---------------- to saying –this is the opinion of Abt Hanifa and most of our jourist), this means that both of Aby Hanifa and Malik are gathered on it .

The second title was(affair of what undesired in wearing gold rings ), Hadith number 871, and Al Shibany recited another Hadith of Malik of Ibn Dinar of Ibn Omar , relating o the prophet that he refused to wear a ring of gold , then he commneted on it saying ( By this we can say that , It’s not allowed for a man to wear a folden ring or silk or yellow , only silver is allowed , But for women it’s allowed to wear golden rings )*, so the undesirable here is what not to be done according to what ‘Mohammed Ibn Hassan Al Shibani’ said , a rhe jourist to write the first jouristic book in muslims history.

‘Al Shafee’, who died in 204-of the migration, was contemporary to ‘Mohammed Ibn Hassan Al Shibany’, but Al Shafee established a separate doctrine with his prominent students, The most important among the was ‘Al Mazny’, died in 264 of the migration, who simplifies a book of Al Shafee called ‘Al Om –the mother’, also there is ‘Al Rabea Ibn Soliman Al Morady’, who died in 270 of the migration, who wrote and recited the book ‘Al Om’, which is the most important among wht Al Shafee wrote and consists of seven vloumes. It’s frequent in Al Shafee book to find (I like something to be done , dislike----), for example (If man want to start the concecration , I like for him to pray a superogatory pray)ie volunary pray and (I like for the woman who is famus for her beauty to circle and walk at night), (I like for the pligram to increase circling arround Al Bit ‘ Al Kaaba ‘ ). So long Al Shafee likes for the pligraam to do so , and so ,sldo he dislikes doing so and so.

This means that Al Shafee expresses his point of view , as regarding what he likes or dislikes .

The following joutists follwed the way of these great four jourists, and over pid to them .

By this the four doctrines were established which are (Al Shafeeah, Al Hanfeah, Al Malikeah, Al Hanbaleah).

And what Al shafee likes becomes desirable, and what he doesn’t becomes undesirable ”makrooh”, or AL Shibani said :” It’s not to be done” , becomes undesirable. Then they overpidded to a part of the undesirable to become illigal, and put a jouristuc principle which transformed into (hadith) related to the prophet, thaugh realtors died before knowing a thing about what was linked to them.

The proof of the is the transformation of the verdict of gold ringing and silk wearing , from the undesirable ‘not to be done’ to absolute illigal, as contemporary jourists prohibits gold ringing and silk wearing for men , while the legislation of the Koran allows both gold ringing and silk and diamond to all people as Allah says in the holy Koran: “oh sons of adam wear your beautiful apperal at every time and place of your prayer -------------) (say ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- al aaraf 31:33)

In the first verse the command br decoration and eating and drinking without excess , and the scond verse is about refusing any prohibition of decorates that Alah created it , and getting it out from the depth of the earth, and refuse prohibition of delicacies, which are ligal and the verse confirms that these are legal for the beleivers, in the life , and sure for other people too, but In the after world when they’re in the paradise such decorates and delicacies will be for them only, without the polytheistsand the people of the hellfire. Then the third verse mentions what Allah prohibited in his legislation for:-

‘Abomination or adultery’, the sexual relation without marriage.

Sin, sins and unobedient actions.

Persecution without any right : injustice.

Polytheism: taking other god with Allah

Saying lies to Allah in his religion and legislation.

This meaans that Koran refutes the claims of those jourists, as they say to Allah wht they don’t know

So gold, silk and diamond are all ligal , for all humanbeings, during life then after world they become delicases restricted to the beleivers, whi are the people of the paradise. Allah say about them (------------------------------ fater 33)

(----------------------------------------- al kahf 31 ).

For astonishment, they prohobit gold amd silk only, in citradictioin to Koran , while they do not mentioin the jewels , which are more precious and high prices. These jewels are gofts of allah to his creators , so if it is getten out of the sea , and Allah say about the sea gifts (-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------al nahl 14).

(--------------------------------------------Fater 12).

So pearls and corals and other jewels are legal for all people to wear it wheather men or women, bur jourists for sociologocal and historical circumstances, hated the exceptional possession of the (Absian) nad (Omaoian) caliphs, of the power and wealth , and hated the governors wearing the gold and silk, whille the enlighted people live under opression and epriivation , when they revolute.

So they wanted to advie the rulers in directly and found that there’s noting convinient as the fatwas and Ahadith related to the prophet , by this disliking the wear of gold changed to a religious fatwas and degress in the legistic verdicts, carring the term undeisrablr ‘makrooh’, because the jourists undesired it , and with the excessive increase of the rulers welfare and money spending in the following eras wearing gold and silk is changed from undesirablr to prohibitedwee can conclude of such orthodoxal historical feature that the term (Undesirable) ‘makrooh’ in the jurudence started as a personal view of the Imams (Aby Hanifa, Malik, Al Shibany, and Al Shafee),m then it become a degree of legistic verdicts of the following jourists, and some overpids to tthje Imams making the Undesirable to be prohibited , all that in a contradiction of the real isalmic legislation ,, which defined by the Koran , and aplied by the prophet in his true and orginal Sunna.

But the invention of the Undesirable degree of legislation for the jourists was convinient with their method of legisaltion which they gave themselvesthe right of commaning the divine legislation by what they called “Jouristic Reasoning” and “Benefits” , so on..

This is, ofcourse is contradicted to the legislation which is completed by the completeness of the Koran and Islam , hwhich defineed the prohibited things as noxious things , which is presents by the text, which prevents anyhting to be added as aprohibiton to what Allah allowed.

But the jourists when allowed themsleves tosay to Allah what they do not know (Al Aaraf 33), they continued their prohibitiion and permission of what is new in their eras , and the personal trend and mood of view where the base of which the jourist establishes his verdicts by saying the legal or illegal.

In such circumstances it was necessary ti make degrees in the space of what is legal and illegal, to go with their bad need of the term Undesirable , then the lte jourists invented the degree of (the prohibiting undesirness) is: the much more undesirable that may reach up to be illigal.

By this, the field is widened in front of the jourists common legistic verdicts by prohibitioin or permission or desirable or usual undesirable or the prohibitin undesirable.

Also the field of contradiction is widened, as what some prohibit , is allowed by others, and what is considered legal by some jourists, is considered illegal or undesirable by others.

Some jourists prefer being midway between who allow and who prohibit and who consider it uindesirable , to be out of the contradiction.

All this confirms the need to the degree of undesirable. And the circle is gradually widened, by new inventions and discoveries, which need jouristic veridcts, like coffe, opium, ……., and tobacco.

By this we reach who said that smoking is undesirable. Among the sponsers of tobacco undesiring :

All of those used the same reasons of prohibition. Among who tries to reconcile between the prohibition and theverdict of undesirability, was Dr. zakaria Alberi, who announced a fatwa in Al akhbar newapaper , in 12/10/1972, is the verdict of smoking is between prohibition and the prohibitioin undesirability.

But the opinion of the present sheikh od Al Azhar (Dr sayed Tnantawy), needs a stop to analyse it , as he announced that smoking is allowable for rich and not for poor. Then when the Mofte started his campaign on smoking in October Mgazine, Sheikh Al azhar enterfers to lighten the bad effect of that campaign, saying that : “smoking is undesirablr but it’s not equivalent to drinking wine and adultery”, this means that smoking verdict , in his view, is changed from being allowed to be undesired, so easy like that , this returns us to the personal mood of the jourist , and according to it he decided that this is legal or illigal, or that is to be liked or not.

We quoted here what Abduul nafea, the author of the book(The Rescue of Man Of Tobacco Darkness)which he wrote in 1115 of the migration, saying by irs end that he explored the opinions of a group of peopole known by their generosity and nobel deeds, and for him they were the scolars lives in Mecca, about their feeling of smoking, then each of them wrote his opinion about it, so all expressed their ownself opinion, and he put down their opinions in the last pages of the book, rhese are some examples : (its tast, I did not taste it , and Allah to be thanked, but its smell accrding to the normal nature), annother one said that ( it’s no doubt a noxious, and my nature considers it to be noxious and dirty) another said (my nature rejected it), anther said ( I considered it a noxious and my nature rejected it), so it’s repeated that they naturally disliked it, before commanding its legistic undesirability , on the same principle like and dislike, they contadicted in many kinds of food between what is legal,or illegal or undesirable. But ir’s a very ling matter to talk about, if they return to be abided by the defined prohibits in Koran, they will have mercy uon us and themselves, by being away of contradiction.

Fifth: Analysis Of Jourist Opinions who are sponsers of smoking is allowable

Among the joursts who allowed smoking, in the past ( Ahmed Al shobary Almesry) and (Bahaey Afandi Alothamny) and ( Ismail Alnapolsi)the author of the book (Al ahkam ‘the rules’) and tobacco was smoking in his presence thaugh he did not smoke it .

Althaugh there is Ibn Ilkasim Alabady Alshafee, and Alshiekh Alhalaby announced a fatws that the husband has to buy tobacco tp hiis wife if she is sccustomed to it . And (Alsheikh Soltan) was buying tobacco for his wifw and duaghters, And Alsheikh Marea AlHamady in his book (the final aim ‘ghayet almona’)announced afatwa that is allowable , also alsheikh ali alaghory and wafaa alerd alhalaby, wrote by allowing it. Also did the same the well known( alsheilkh abdel hghany al nabolsi) in his book ( concillation but brothers in the verdict of tobacco permission). The method of Abdelghany Alnabolsy in hi9s book, was the beginning of denying he presence of smoking harmful effects , saying that he neve heard of a mand died because of smoking , if a person is harmed by smoking without others, then it’s prohibited to him, and he said that the fatwa of jourists by prohibiting smoking is based ob bad characters related to smoking, then the fatwa is made to identify with that bad characters , he added that if there’s a hram of smoking , it’s obligatory to prohibit it, as many of the allowed things are to be noxious for some people.

So his main aim of allowence of smoking is that his fear of the pure legislatioin to be susptible for adding or removing things without any legistic proves, but only by the jouristic reasoning and psychological illusion. Then he mentioned the benefits of smoking in a separate chapter, presenting in it the culture of the Othmanic era*.

Abdul Ghany Alnabolsi was a sofistic joutist , the orthodoxal jourist Alhanabela did not respest his opinion, but there’s a well known Imam of the Hanabela announced a fatwa that smoking is allowed, He was the judge (Mohamed Ibn Ali Alshokany), the author many known books, in one of it (leading the asks to the markers of matters) saying in the verdict of smoking ( the original principle that presents by Koran and pure sunna is that all that person on earth is to be legal , nothing of it is to be illegal , except by special proof , what is without proof , is to be legal according to the orignal nature , and as confirmed by the general proves a Allah –almight- said (---------------------------------------------------------),a regarding the tree of tobacco , he said that there’s no proof that it is prohibited ,or it si the alcoholic or toxins or any other thing that may cause harm at time or later ,and anyone claimed that is illegal, is to present the proof and the titlem tattle is not enaugh, some scholars deduced on the prohibition of smoking by quoting of Koran (-----------------------------------) and then subjointed , and then subjointed tobacco to the noxious, this is fault , as who uses tobacco does not consider it as a noxious. So the matter evokes contradiction in opinions to the degree that some people considered it ‘honey’ ro be a noxious , althaugh it’s the most delicated substance, and it was told about the prophet that he refused to eat the meat of (dabb lizard), while the companions ate it in front of the prophet. So justice is to command permission, not prohibitioin in case of personal opinions , which dislikes osme kinds of food , and because of theat it’s considered to be illegal.

Subsequently, tobacco is permissible althaugh some consider it to be anoxious, and command by its prohibition*1 .

In the othamnic era when Alnabolsi and Ashokany appearred the harmful effects of tobacco not clear yet, and this supported the fatwa by its permision , and so it was for him to accuse who prohibits smoking by being a follower of his personal feelings, or the tobacco description by the othrs in his common.

By comparsion between the fatwa of Alnabolsi and and that of Alshokani, we find that Alnabolsi was moreaffirm in discussing the caise that make the harm a cause of smoking prohibition , While Alshokani relayed on the opinion saying that tobacco is not a cause of immediate, or late harm , in permission of smoking.

So if he lived in our era , he would command by prohobotion , according to his presistant legistic view that makes the harm is the basis of prohibition .

But, Alshokani has an adventage to Alnabolsi because he confirmed that the principle of permission is the original principle, or as he expressed : the original anture , while prohibtion is the exception which needs a proof.

Because of being a good jourist , he commanded that the description of tobacco as to be of a noxious , is a persona opinion , and the personal opinions are not correct in prohibition cases for food, without presence of an affirming text.

In the 20th century , due to the upper hand of ancestrol power , the books of Alshokani spreaded, and his intellictiual effect was extended onto the following jourists , to the degree that they said by his opinion inpermission of smoking , the roof of that many of well known jourists repsrted his plea about the original nature , or the original principle is permision and they grasped to his plea in an era , when the harmful effect of smoking was discovered , but due to the known harmful effects , they said that: “ Althaugh that the basic principle is permission, but it’s submitted to 5 rulesaccording to its use from the obligatory , undesirable , desirable , illegal, or permission. So if there is no harm it’s allowed , and if it’s harmful it’s prohibited. If it’s use helped in avoiding harm, it’s to be used”.

This means that originally, it’s allowed, but the circumastances of use changed the verdict, so the casue of harm is still present , and effictive on the verdict of tobacco , wheather it’s illegal or allowed.

Then we are going to show the opinions of the most famous jourists, who used this speech in the twentieth century.

In Alshabab Almuslim “the youth muslims’ magazine, which is the voice of the ancestral trend , there was a fatwa by Abdelwahab Alnaggar, who was one of Alazhar scholars , in the verdict of tobacco smoking where Koran is recited , saying that it varies according to the aim of the smoker, if he smoked it for treatment , then it’s legal, but if smoked it for entertainment it’s undesirable but not illigal, and if he smoked it to show nonrespect of the Koran, this is to be considered unbeleif. Then he adds that tobacco smoking is submitted to the five rules , so it’s obligatory if it’s for treatment , and is illigal for the harm, and undesirable if the harm is not confirmed, and desirable if there is expected benefits of its use ,and is allowed if it has neither harm nor benefit. And the verdicts of actions are changeable according to the accompanied intentions*1.

Also sheikh Hassan Albanna, the leader of the trnd known as (Alikhwan Almuslemin “muslim brothers”), announced a similar fatwaquoting the statement of the Imam Alshokany literally, adding to it what is discovered in the 20th century of the harmful effects of smoking together with money wasting (ie the financial harm), By the end of his fatwa he said “What appeared to me is that tobacco smoking is leagl in origin, as the permission is the base, but it’s illegal not fot itself , but for its harmful effects, and so it’s little subjointed to its excess… to prevent the bad impression ….while treatment it is allowed according to the amount needed for treatment”. This means that Albannna tries to concilate between Alshokany opinion in Othmain era, and the different opinions in the 20th century , making smoking is allowable some times but it’s illegal most of the time, So it’s a politcal fatwa to make all the opinons satisfied. And reconciles with the principle of Albanna in his attempt to gather all muslims around one aim, which is the establishment of a religious state , taking in mind what this gathering needs of concilation between different opinions , dctrines and sectors.

Also Alsheikh Hasanein Makhlouf, the most famous mofti in Egypt and arabic world in the 20th century , was repeating the same fatwa by permission of smoking using the same plea, which is the basic verdict is permission, then illegality or undesirability appear only by the presence of a much or less in self or money, and it’s legal if it is free of such things, wheather its different ways of use, and by the end he says “and we announced such fatwa more than once”*3.

And wha is useful in the speech of Alsheikh Makhlouf , is the reference to there was a previous sever contradiction, nede the repeatting of the fatwa more than once.

Also Alsheikh Youssif Aldegwy. A member of the comitee of a great scholars , shared by his fatwa in sever contradiction, at the beginig Alsheikg Aldegwy was asked about verdict of tobacco smoking where Koran is recited , and he announced a fatwa in Nour Alislam “the kight of islam” magazine , in 1928, saying that : “It’s not needed at all to say that somking is legal or illegal , instead we look to the situation of the smoker , if tobacco smoking harms his health , or he needs its price to satisfy the necessity of everybody life, so smoking is prohibited to him , if there is no harm , there is no need for its priohibition , that is the verdict of smokin itself , But tobacco smoking where Koran is reicited is illegal.

Then he was asked about the verdict of smoking in the mosque, and eh commanded that it’s illegal, but he adde that this affair is to be susceptible fot deligence and cotradiction of thaught, then a book was published titled as (Announcement that tobacco is not prohibited ) and Alsheikh Alskeikh Aldegwy wa asked to refute the ideas in that book, but he avoidd to do that and said( This book is not to be destributed and announced between people , as these affairs that were mentioned in it are fault in part and aberrated in other part, and it is not of belief to imitate t or to use it , and it’s not allowed to follow certificates .

And what he said that ( it’s not allowed to be pronounced to the people as they amy disuse it ), by the end he said that (It’s not allowed to use the ideas of this book or to read except for the enlightened scholars ) this shows he was convinced by strong plea of the author , and so he did not want to destribute that book between people.

And because he avoided to refute that book, and its proves , he was pushed to clarify his opinion about smoking , and he said that it’s not legal by itself , and anyone who san can not claim that it’s illegal by itself unless he was ignorant or stickler or resisting , as he has say that its verdict is permissionand he found what obligates his prohibition , like the obvious harm in the body or mind of the smoker , it’s considered to be illegal , but if there is an obvious harm in getting red of smoking , it’s obligatory , or it’s to be allowed*1.

This means that Aldegwy is more enthusiased to smoking prohibition after reading the book which permisses smoking.

Nearly tha sasme fatwa was repeated bt ( Alsheikh Mohammed AbduslLatif Alsobky) the cheis fo fatwa committee in ALAzhar , and was published in ALAhram in 7/10/1966, saying that smoking is prohibited , if it cuases harm to the smoker in body , or money, and is allowed if there is no harm, and is not to be forbidden if the humanbeings needs it in his medicine, because tha basic preinciple for things is permissin.

Abd during nowdays compaign for smoking prohibition after discovery if its harmful effects one of the professional drama writers, called the attention of the jourists, who prohibit smoking because of harm, asking as muslim scolars to remember Allah, in permission and prohibition, saying the use of harm in prohibition , if we condiser this as a standard measure , we shall prohibit cheap meats and fats and…….even bread. And he said that when Allah almight , prohibited the pig meat, this is not because its harmful effects as it was not proved , and he confirmed the permission of what Is legal and prohibition of what is illegal, as a divine command and deligence and deductions are no uswith it , he added that the base is permission of things , and it’s not correct to prohibit depending only on the harm*.

This shows us what the drama writer(Dr colonel Bahaa Aldyn Ibrahim, was understanding of the fact od islam more than these sheikhs, ehat remians is to dicuss these opinions in the light of the holy Koran and kegislation which were applied by the prophet.

Was permission the basic principle ?, IS it possible to transform what is permissed to illegal and Undesirablr and obligaotry?

Here we are going to show the Koranic rules:-

Prohibited things are exceptions which are precisely defined in the text and such prohibited may become allowable in case of obligation (-------------------------------Al Ahkaf 173), and in all case Allah forgives the unintended mistakes(--------------------------------------------------------------------AL Ahzab 5) making things more easy is the base of legislation in koran and islam(---------------------------------------Alnesaa 28)(---------------------------------------Albacarah 185) (Allah does not wish to place you in defficulty Almaea 6) (-------------------Alhag 78) and of the features of easing , is tha permission is the baic principle , and prohibition is the exception , and some prohibits may be considered legal in case of obligatory, or unintended mistake. The inteded or unintended maistake is to be left to the verdict of Allah who know wht is deep in the heart , this meand that this condidtion is between the person and his god, while the society or the judical power or the jourists , have nothing to do with it , and if hey claimed that they have the right of interfernece so they make themselves as if they were god sharing the Allah , while IN islam there is no god but Allah. As some of the prohibted things may be considered to be permissible in case of obligation or making Unintended mistakes, all the permissed may become illegal in two cases-taking it by illegal methos, or consuming it in excess and waste. For example the bread is leagl for itself , but when you take it by stealing , or consume it in excess and wast, it’s to be illegal.

The same previous rule is true about other substances , in the universe and nature , and on the earth , as Allah-almight, created the unvivers and employed it to us(-------------------------------------------------------------------------Al gathia 13), employ it means subjugate it to us but we have to make use of it wiasely , otherwise we may bring harm to ourselves, and this left for us as these elements are inert in itself , for example the knife could be benefits ar harmful, also dynametic , which is used to build the roads or to destroy towns in their inhabitants , even our use of the knife in killing , dynamite in war , could be allowed in legal self defence. This means that harm and benefits are presnt in all the elements, but the human being is asked to use the nature and it resources to be benefit for him, as the nost benefit substances . e,g water and oxygen may be turned to killing methods , and the worst toxins could be a source of making medicine , and the subject here is the man , so he may be a sources of evil and sin, or he may be a servant for the humanbeings and a defender of the trut and home. This is similsr to what allowed which is considered legal when taking by legal methods , but when it’s misused it is considered illegal, This is true for tobacco , bread…………extra.

The harm is a rational meaure as human being are able to define it in all circumstances , and all what is used for equipment and food and medicine have side effects and humanbeings are asked to use it in a way that protects them and their environment, but this must be a side with the religious prohibition which was previously defined , and no one has the right ot increase or to overpid to it, only Allah who created the unvirse and having all the knowledge about its contesnts has counted the and defeined the prehibbitted things and pit and end for legislation by the completeness of the Koran , so if we are allowed to put things the prohibited ones Koran would mention it and put the rules that allow us to add what is harmful to the list of prohibitions that’s althaught Koran mentionned the general rules for legislation ,among he permissin of all kinds of trading so long they are by natural contents of agreement (Alnessa 29), ie : the society , agrees on it , and establishes a law for it, subsequentky is the society and its organization for legilation see that ther’s no benefit in trading tobacco and other substances so no objection on that , tp achieve the baisc conditin, which is the mutual consent of agreement , regardless the objection of a strict jourist who makes commands contradict eith legislation of Allah, and intercaltes themselves on every thing. The previous point evokes a case a bout the atitudes of Koran twards the details of everybidy life and society and to what extend, Koran intercalates into such things .

Sixth: Koran attitudes of widenness the jouristic verdicts in all the fields of life :

What is to be notices is that all the jourists details did not only accommodate the details of life and contradict en evaluating it But also invented imaginary jouristic conceps , wheich were so dulll and um , speciaslly in the eras of retradtion during the 13th century.an thousands of jourist books are full of the real and imaginary details arround which the verdicts are so contradicted.

This put it in a critical position whent it is compared to Koran , which its legislation verses don’t reach 200 verses, with all the details of it.

Despite the Koranic verses to whom objectively understand it , are the most convinient for application in every era , this is a case that needs a long discussion but we shall make it brief in the following points :

Koranic Legislation :- which are details in common, and a few rules , and high virtues and legistic aim, which the fewest

Most of Kornic legislatin are details deal with the family, regarding: marriage, divorces. Heritage and womaen rights. While in politics it only puts the rules of coculation –or direct democracy , als in trade it put the rules of natural constent of ageements an honst and respecting contracts.

Koranic legislation in their details and rules depend on what is common and known in the society of superior vertues , the dominet culture , and what it wants to achieve of legal benefits. Justice , easing and belief with living concious , are the most superior virtues and legitic aim of Koran.

Both the details an the rules of legisltion inKoran need the enactment of himan laws look after the need of society, and it’s circumstances and abilities , and thaugh such laws , it’s possible to apply the islamic legislation in every time and place.

Koranic legislations kept silent twards the main part of what the society needs , dependencing on the Known “Al Ourf” as a reference , the Known “Al Ourf”, as mentioned before , is the superior virtues , such as : justice, easing the benfits of society and the rights of citizens , and by the known “AL Ourf”, reference the society enactments what he wants of huma lwwas that takes in consideration the justice and easing , and covers all the details , these laws are civilised , and not religious , so they’re liable for revision. After that we can conclude that the legistic part of the Koran, despite it’s too small, it’s viabe to application ineach time and place ,and it gives the societ the legality of enactment suitable laws for it, and still convinient with each development appears in the society according to the bases and references ,which include the superior virtues and changing cultures for each time and place.

Regarding our subject in the case of tobacco, we can say that if the jourists were complied to the islamic legilation in the Koran , they would not command by it’s prohibition , depending on the Koranic bases which defeined hje prohibited things and consider it to be n exception of what is permissed. And prevent prohibition of what is legal also they would not command by the prevention of the planting and and the tradiung of tobacco, so long people agree to such trade , and if they understood the koranic legislations , they would know what is allowed needs akind of decipline when used to aoid the side effects .

Finally, if muslims understood Koranic legislation, ther would be no need for such jourists , as Koranic are few and simple for every one wants to understand it. Therfore if the literated person , thinks by his own mind , wiil cme to meet the Koranic legislation, specially if he cleand his mind of the fatwas of sheikhs.

The trendness of repeated in tervention of the sheikhs by prohibition, and fatwas of everything , even if it is not I there business , may push an old thinker, near 80 years, to announce that (the jourists have not the right to say that is legal , and tha is illegal), that was said by Gamal Albanna , the brother of Hassan Albanna, the founder of (Alekhwan Almuslemin “the muslim brithers”) group, and he wrote the previous quotation as a title of his essay in(Al Kahera) newspaper in 26/9/2000.

In our concept the islamic nation, according to Koranic reasoning and the true sunna of the prophet , is the nation which is established on achieving justice and free religion and thinking and announcing opinion, and human rights to peace by such measure, “Switherland”, is the nearest nation to the cnceps of islamic nationrather than other nations.

Really the nations with muslims majority, devides according to its organizatioin into religious, dictatoric nations , Shiitic like Iran , or Sunna and Wahabeya like Saudia , and secular revised nations where soldiers are dictatorics and religious men may have the same power like Egypt ad Pakistan or nations where religious men has no power like Tunisia and Syria.

All these ‘islamic’ nations share in its reafistic and beneficial view twards application to the islamic rule wheather they are basically a part of the islaimc religion , and its absolute prohibition , or what is a cause of contradicion between jourists like tobacco.

In Egypt and other sunnic nations, as wellas in shiiatic Iran , there;s a deeply rooted concept about sanctifying the groves and idols , althaught this is contradictedwith the islamic concept, and in most of the islamic nation, wines are baught and sold , althaugh they were extremely prohibited , even in some islamic nations adultery is permissed to be public , But im most of such nations adultery is practised secretly , despite of the ananimous on the adultery prohibition. Because the efective factor in application or the neglected islamiuc legislation, is the real benefits , the opression and autocracy are dominant , and the human rights are inulted , and all that is agains islam, also some of the islamic retuals are applied with modidfcations or by a defected method , according to the benefit.

Let us take for example the wide gap between the slogans and the practise in the wahabian saudian nation and its relation to smoking .

As w ahabian concept preohibits tobacco , and when (Abdelaziz Alsaud )etablished the third Saudain nation (1902/1933)the strict Ikhwan Brothers were his main power and were killing the smokers to the degfree that the bedoins were smoking in secret, for fear of the (Ikhwan Brothers) , and when the Ikhwan sieged the Kuwait one of their condition were the Kwitiand to get rid of tobacco smoking*.

Despite of that when Abdilaziz conquered Gedda amd ordered to confiscate the tobacco stores the the traders complained of their big lossings , if he burnt tobacco , and he knew the the taxes of the tobacco are more than the pertoleum income, at this time , so he commanded by the continuity of tobacco imports*, because of the flexiblity of Abdulaziz the Ikhwan, the mian piler in hhis army , revolted against him, and after he destroyed them , in 1930 , gradually the wahabian prohibits felt fown like music,singing and smoking and wine, which then sneaked into the royal palaces of princes*, and the Saudian princess became the agents of tobacco companies..Note look at the appendix no (2), and it become famous , that some princes addected cigarettes and wines, and when the new Ikhwans invaded the Kaaba in 1979, the crown prince Fahd was attending a conference in tunisia, and because of his anxiety, he was smoking excessivly, in front of the camers, while the Saudian jourist do their best in prohibiting the tobacco.

The same was in Egypt where the jourists who preohibited smoking, some of them, due to their position , close to the government , like (Shaltout), and (Gad Ilhaq), and(Ateya Sakr), and (Nasr Farid ‘almofti’), all of them tell the government to procedures against smoking , but the Egyptian government did not respond to them , as it’s like anyother government looking for benefits, specially it knows that the jourists themselves contradict about the verdict of smoking.

Appendix Number(1)

From a research by Dr. Ahmed Sobhy Mansor , about what is legal and is illegal in islam:

Four :the refute onto the prohibition of smoking:

Introduction :

The devil method, as we showed before, is preohibiting what is legal and allowed , thraugh intellectual ways that try to explain the cause of prohibition and then establishes over that a prohibotion of other things , and if –for them, the cause of the prohibition is the harm , so every harmful thing is considered to be illegal.

This was what the sponsors of tobacco preohibtion agree abot , because it’s harmful for health , althaugh the tobacco companies put what confirms that (TOBACCO IS VERY HARMFUL TO HEALTH) but this is not satisfactory for the sponsors , as they intercalated religion, trnasforming smokiig into a religious affair . looking for proves tp prohibit it, beside their confess that tobaco affair was not known in the prophet era, and there’s no text in the Koran prohibits it, also it was not known in the era of the four Imam of the jouristic doctrines, but it’s a new affair in the modern muslim history.

here we put the following notes

-the divine prohibition of the illegal things , which are defined by the Koran , are not prohibited because of a pyysical cause of prohibition, except fot describing it as to e filth and dissipation , such descriptions demonstrates the relation between the prohibition an the concept. We previously cleared that Koranic confirmation on that who prohibited legal things , is to fall in polytheism , as Allah –almight says (-------------------------------------alaaraf 158).this was he description of the 4prohibited things , by being filth or dissipation, and of the repeated descrptions of the polytheism, they are filth (Al anam 125, Al aaraf 71, Altoba 95,125 , Unis 100, Alhag 30), also describing the polythiest by being dissipation was repeated 10 times. So the description of the ptohoboted things to be filth and dissipation, is a moral description , exactly equal to the description of the legal to be good , and the name of Allah on it , while describing the illegal things by being anoxious , and equals to the plytheists description by filthe and dissipation , and the intimate link between what allah allowed , with the affair of being injustice with Allah and assult his right in legislation and so is prohibition of what is legal is considered in itself to be filth and dissipation.But the important affai here id that allah did not prohibit these four things , because of physical harm , but because Allah want that , and He-almight, not to be asked about what to do , and we have to obey without any questions , as the angels did when obeyed the command by kneeling in front of Adam, without a question.

-because of that Allah repeated his alarm of following the devil in the subject of food prohibition , specially, and repeated the previous legistic rules about definition of the prohibited things and preventing the prohibition of the legal things , it’s polytheism will Allah forbidden to himthe repitation demonstrates the presence of implied incapacitaions , because Allah is the only to see the invisible , know that after thedescent of Koran , it’ll cme who prohibits the legal and fabricates to Allah without any information and assult to the right of Allah , in legislation, therfore the verses were repeated. And also he adhere to the following such verses in the Koran , It’s enaugh for the bemeiver to be advise by one verse to change his life after it , And so Allag repeated the the same concepts many times , in order not to let people to have a plea in front of Allah in the doomsday.

-Allah almight punish the jewesh , when thay prohibited what is legal , and so he prohibited it to them , this exactly was they invented the monasticism , so allah stuck it to them (Al hadid 27), that beacuse Allah alone has the right of legislation as regarding the legal and illegal, in the obligatory obedience .

what is important is here Allah-almight prohibited to the jewish , every animal with a nail ans cheeps and cows fat except for the fat around their intestines, or the fats mixed with the bones, because they prohibited that , and so Allah prohibited it to them.

And the divine explanation was this in recompence for their willful disobedience : for we are true in our obedience (AlAnam 146)

Allah did not say that , we prohibited these substances to you because thay contain Cholestrol, or because fats are very harmfulto health , but the cause was absolutely moral , that they assulted the right of Allah of legislation , therefore prohibited such substances to them.

-What is surprising is that the word harm and its derivation are repeated in the Koran 75 times , without any mention of prohibition of harm, and the prophet an anyone else don’t able to cause harm for himelf or the others except by the permision of Allah , and the imagined gods can not any harm or benefence to anyone , and the human beng is harmed he would turn only toAllah , even the word obligated which is derived of the “harm”-In Arbic- , is that mentioned in the subject of food for surprise it came to confirm the permission , not the forbeddence , came to confirm the permission of earing the four prohibited substances so long there ius no assult on Allah right in legislation and permission of what Allah prohibited..ie to eat in an obligatory situation , but know that what he eats is illegal and not legal..this was mentioned before.

But if the healthy and financials cuases are the ause of prohibition , the Koranic context would be changed, but some think that they know more than Allah as regarding :religion , life and deseace, and the benefits and the harm.

-With all respects to the opinions of physcians about the harmfull effects of smoking , we are asked about a subject related to legislation , and is smoking alone is harmful to health?, are not salt and sugar harmful to health, Allah-almight permissed the food of the sea and fishing from it , althaugh it contains what is tixic and harmful when be eaten, but it’s legal by the strict text, and ofcource we do not consume it to preserve our health, but without prohibitting it. Then not medicines have side effects , sme medicians that iff we thraugh all medicines in the sea , the human health will imrove, while the fish health will deteriorate , so the treatment of medice be illegal because of its side effects ?.

Here the divine wisdom becomw apperant , for restricting the prohibits for what Allah prohibited without any addition or reductin , and without any execuse for any addition due to any reason, as the harm is rational, and any person according to the legislation of Koran has the right to beleive or disbeleive, to obey or disobey (AlKahf 29 , Alesra 107 , Fosselat 40), subsequently he has the right to smoke or not , and this is a life aggair, but the society has to show the risks of smoking , and specifies places for non-smkers , to avoid the harmfull effects, but what is important is to keep religion of Allah away of the misuse of this affair , to avoid comitting the crime of prohibiting what is legal.

We said before that the permissed legal is the origin, and the prohibited things are the exceptions and that Aalah prohibits the prohibitting of the legal, and we add that permission legal needs discipline which is persent in Koran. For example bread is legal for itself , but when I steal it , its eating would become illegal , the illegality is not in the bread itself , which is permissed, but in the method of getting it. Because of that in Koranic legislation , there are two joint words (legal, and good), to include that :It’s leagal for itself,Also it’s good in the way it’s getten and consumed, By this w can undrstand WhatAllah say: (O ye people , eat of what is on earth , lawful and good-Albacarah 168). This shows that it’s not to lanch on what is not my right , But I should get it thraugh legal ways , to be legal and good. Subsequently the legal has two conditions :-

To be out the four prohibited things .

To get and consume it by legal method.

So the illgal has two conditions:-

1- To be one of the four prohibited things.

2-To be legal, but was getten and consumed by illegal method.

Applying on bread or cigarettes, such substances are ligal in itself , its take is legal if we get it by legal methods , and is illegal if we tok it violently or steal it by hush money , and this is the legistic organization to consume the legal and use it .

-Of the legistic organization is the moderation in the use and way of consume , as the excess of food is illegal , this meand that food is legal in itself , but the excess ineating food is forbidden (Eat and drink but was not by excess for Allah loves not the wasters –Alaaraf 31).

Excess include overspend of money which I get by legal methods , But I overspend it, Allah forbids wasting even in getting the (Almaz) in an exagerrating way (-------------------------------------------------------------------and render to the kindred --------------Al esraa 26), and Allah commands by moderation in spending the legal money (--------------------------------------Alesraa 29)

(-------------------------------------------------------------Alforkan 67) so bread and cigarettes are legal in themselves, but if you made an excess in food or smoking , this to be illegal, and illegality here is in the way of consumption, not in the cigarette itself.

After These Notes , we refute the sponsors of smoking prohibition :-

They claimed that , it’s among the excess and spendthift, and this point was previously cleared.

They claimed that because of the hram , and this was refuted.

But they quoted two Koranic verses ( and make not your own hands contribute yu to destruction ), and this quotation is not in place because Allah talk in other subject , about the alms , as it’s a security value for the socity , otherwise it would become into a rich minority and hungery and deprivated majority , and the result would be destruction of the society from the insideand this is the meaning of (Albacarah 195), smoking has no relation to this verse at all, but they separated a part of the verse and the whole context , to use it as a proof of prohibition of a thing that Allah allowed .

And this is the corruption in the book of Allah, as after they’ve failed to corrupt the Koranic text, they play in the meaning of to come a new verdict contradicted

The views and opinions of authors whose articles and comments are posted on this site
do not necessarily reflect the views of IQC.